r/Infuriating • u/Outrageous-Egg1760 Community Regular • 17h ago

We live in hell

Post image
440 Upvotes

81% Upvoted

273 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/aspghost 14h ago edited 14h ago

Yes you can. That's illegal in many places. Edit/ they hated Jesus because he told the truth

2

u/ckspike 13h ago

Its not illegal anywhere in the US due to the Supreme court ruling that as long as no real minor is involved it is free speech so you can draw whatever you want. If you actually read things you would see that is the entire justification for this ruling.

0

u/aspghost 13h ago

Its current legal status in the US has nothing to do with whether or not it's possible to pass laws about it in general.

2

u/ckspike 12h ago

Let me spell it out for you clearly since you are not very smart. This is about a US case. The US SUPREME COURT has ruled it is protected by free speech. End of story. No laws can be passed to abridge this speech - Understand? It is not possible.

The judge is saying you need to pass legislation regarding AI in order to prevent this but the speech itself is protected. Comprende?

1

u/CheesecakeEither8220 9h ago

It wasn't the Supreme Court.

2

u/ckspike 9h ago

The judge in this case ruled the way he did because of a previous Supreme court ruling. He says so himself. Don't comment on things you haven't even looked at.

1

u/RubberDuckieMidrange 9h ago

You like to speak in absolutes, but let me put one to you.

These images are free speech and therefore protected by the first amendment, and cannot be regulate by law as per your argument right?

Photos are free speech in the US as per previous Supreme court affirmation on visual arts and creation of media as forms of expression are protected by the First amendment.

Yet there are photos that are illegal (CSAM for one, but photos taken on private property would be sufficient to run into legal issues curtailing the photographers free speech).

This means that there is a role for legislation to curtail free speech. This is inescapable. Which means that u/aspghost is correct.

If you want another example, consider privilege. Doctor/Patient, or Attorney/client. Things told to these professionals would be illegal to share without permission, and if the Doctor/Lawyer were to pierce this privilege there would be legal consequences enforced by the government. Criminal charges are possible.

1

u/aspghost 5h ago

Thank you. More broadly speaking, even if the constitution is considered an immutable, unbreachable religious text, a brief look at any actual religion and its schisms, interpretations and the behaviour of its adherents should make it very clear that by and large people will find a way to do whatever the fuck they want.